Primary Navigation

Secondary Navigation

19578Re: Fighting Howard's attacks

Expand Messages

bobgould987

Jul 4, 2005

By Bob Gould

In examining the articles in Seeing Red, the posts of Marce Cameron
and the coverage in Green Left Weekly, I formed the opinion that the
DSP leadership regards the transfer of industrial powers from the
states to the federal government as a matter of little importance,
thereby giving objective assistance to the key strategic part of
Howard's agenda.

In my comments I raised the possibility that I may have got it wrong
and if so the DSP might be expected to respond with a rounded
exposition of its views on the Howard transfer plans.

All I get in response is the kind of double talk with which I'm quite
familiar in arguments with the Stalinists over many years.

The last statement before Fredman's statement that he, personally,
didn't support the transfer of powers, was Marce Camerons saying that
the transfer was a matter of little importance because neoliberal
state Labor governments could use the state systems for their own
purposes, or words to that effect.

Now the DSP line seems to have to changed a bit, but the only hint at
that is a one-line personal assertion from Nick Fredman that he
doesn't support the transfer. He didn't say the DSP opposed the
transfer, just that he did.

In Norm's angry response to Ed Lewis, he doesn't say that the DSP
opposes the transfer, he just points to Nick Fredman's personal statement.

If I've got it wrong, it would be comparatively easy for the DSP
leadership, and/or people in the leadership, to make a rounded general
statement about the DSP's attitude to the transfer of industrial powers.

The DSP will have to do this eventually, because the transfer of
powers from the states to the federal government is emerging as the
critical chink in the armour of Howard and the ruling class, and it
looks like emerging as the critical issue that may lead to some Tory
political figures voting against the transfer in the Senate, which may
stymie Howard's whole agenda.

If I've got it wrong, and the DSP leadership opposes the transfer of
powers, or if it has changed its previous line, and now opposes the
transfer, it should explain its views.

I've been writing about this question for two or three months, and
I've set out my views at length, particularly in the paper I delivered
at the Labour History conference, which is available on Ozleft.http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Brucepaper.html If the DSP
leadership is stuck for adequate historical information on the
transfer, they're more than welcome to take up some of my arguments. I
don't have copyright on them.

After a considerable period of downplaying the importance of the
transfer of powers, in such a way as to give objective support to
Howard's agenda, it's not adequate to accuse me of being delusion and
lying about the DSP's position without spelling out the DSP's position
on the disputed question. Failure of the DSP spell out its position
clearly can only lead to further misunderstanding, if any
misunderstanding has occurred, which is still not clear.

Accusing me of being delusional about the DSP and not replying to my
detailed assembly of what appears to be evidence about the DSP's
position, isn't an adequate response on this important question. If
Norm and the DSP leadership believe I'm wrong, they could easily prove
that with a carefully developed argument against the transfer of powers.

Failing that, Norm Dixon appears to be engaged in diversionary abuse
and smoke and mirrors.